The Homosexual Double Standard, Ad-hoc, Cavalcade!

[Tassman]

The meanings of those words tend to be neither fixed nor commonly accepted, so you need paraphrasing for your own and other people's protection.



Now why would I give power to glib low-effort hacks by taking their exact words seriously?



Arf arf, someone didn't get it out of his system by doing actual physical work with physical humans at a young age.



All right, baby girl, you win



Don't feel like it



Throw out some Aesop first, Mr. Sour Grapes.



You got one part of that statement right.



Then quit shouting so much, dude. It's annoying and pointless, and only serves to throw your utterly petty motivations into sharp relief. First comes the shouting, then you start editing or truncating quotes...it's a vicious cycle, really.

I've done no "shouting" nor have I "edited" or "truncated" your posts very often. All of these things have been your standard modus operandi, not mine. So, presumably by engaging thus, and not addressing my actual responses, you are acknowledging you don't have an argument.

Fear not, as always I shall be gracious in victory.

[Epoetker]

I've done no "debating" nor have I "engaged" or "addressed" your posts very often. All of these pointless non-debate responses have been my standard modus operandi, not yours. So, presumably by engaging thus, and not addressing my actual responses, you are acknowledging that I don't have an argument by copying my argumentative style in comical and easy-to-follow language.

Fear not, as always I shall be petulant in victory.

We can all count on it. I'm truly sorry you feel this way, as your ideology is in fact rather limited when you can't brag, make power plays, or change the subject without getting immediately and shamelessly called on it by a more articulate individual.

[Tassman]

We can all count on it. I'm truly sorry you feel this way, as your ideology is in fact rather limited when you can't brag, make power plays, or change the subject without getting immediately and shamelessly called on it by a more articulate individual.

My “ideology” can stand on its own merits without the necessity to resort to unethical games or “power plays” - if that’s what you want to call the mangling of my text as per this post plus many previous ones.

[Epoetker]

My “ideology” cannot stand on its own merits without the necessity to resort to unethical games or “power plays” - if that’s what you want to call the clarifying of my text as per this post plus many previous ones.

Here's a gigantic hint, Tassy-if you had anything useful to say, it wouldn't be so easy to crush, dismiss, and reverse it with a few word substitutions. Rhetoric always rhymes, facts can't be so easily shoehorned into a soundbite.

[Tassman]

Here's a gigantic hint, Tassy-if you had anything useful to say, it wouldn't be so easy to crush, dismiss, and reverse it with a few word substitutions. Rhetoric always rhymes, facts can't be so easily shoehorned into a soundbite.

What I said was that my “ideology” can and does stand on its own merits. It does not require a loser's tricks, such as altering opponent's texts, shouting via large fonts, or “power plays” - as you grandiosely describe your inability to respond to the actual facts of the discussion.

[Epoetker]

• Edited by a Moderator •

Moderated By: QuantaFille

Post removed.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

[Tassman]

Now, now, Tassman, do you think I'm doing this for your benefit?

I think you persistently rewrite my texts and respond to your own mangled version of them, because you long ago lost the debate and have no other recourse other than school-yard taunting.

[Epoetker]

I think you persistently clarify my texts and respond to your own artfully edited version of them, because you long ago won the debate and have no other need other than highlighting the fact that I insist on posting halfhearted responses to every reply no matter whether or not I actually have anything to add.

Yes, yes indeed.

[Tassman]

Yes, yes indeed.

Of course you agree, given that you're responding to your own rewording of my text; not to agree with yourself would be deranged behaviour.

[Kristian Joensen]

Epoetker isn't deranged? :P

[Jedidiah]

He ain't alone.

[Epoetker]

Of course you agree, given that you're responding to your own clarifying of my text; not to agree with yourself would be deranged behaviour.

Not really. My edits are mainly to substitute your inaccurate and misleading words which mean nothing with words that reflect either your actual meaning or the reality of the situation. It's a good policy for dealing with compulsive liars.

[Tassman]

Not really. My edits are mainly to substitute your inaccurate and misleading words which mean nothing with words that reflect either your actual meaning or the reality of the situation.

Grandiose nonsense!

It's a good policy for dealing with compulsive liars.

Projection!

Epoetker isn't deranged? :P

Of course he isn't...............?

[Epoetker]

Grandiose nonsense!

Pointing!

Projection!

Sputtering!

Of course he isn't...............?

Winning

[Tassman]

Pointing!



Sputtering!



Winning